|
The Presidential race is on everyone’s minds, none more so than the members of the Right to Life movement. Barack Obama is, perhaps, the most radical pro-abortion candidate we have ever seen, and he is within arm’s reach of reversing all progress that has been made to protect the lives of the unborn, and to protect women from the side-effects of abortion.
I recently stated that Barack Obama is Pro-Abortion. One of my family members was quick to respond, “He isn’t pro-abortion, he is pro-choice.” I would give someone the benefit of the doubt and call them pro-choice if they really believed that a woman had not made an initial choice that caused her to become pregnant in the first place. Or don’t we know what causes it? Haven't we had the Pill since the 60's; and a choice of many other contraceptives before and since that; or are we supposed to take it for granted that women are too stupid to use them? Given that rape preempts the “right to choose”, then we are only talking about 5% or fewer of all abortions which are being done. There are other ways to manage those pregnancies that are being ended because of economics, convenience, preference, gender selection, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera... Every child is wanted by someone.
The "health exception" that is frequently invoked to dismiss any common sense regulation on this medical procedure, is used to cover every type of health: mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical. Thus the extension to unrestricted abortion on demand. If a psychiatrist, psychologist, minister or physician will attest to a woman's health issue, then a woman can obtain an abortion, virtually without restriction, at any stage. People wonder why people in the Pro-Life movement often won't allow an exception for a woman's health. Seems reasonable enough, but when we don't specify PHYSICAL health, then exceptions have to be made for every health issue from indigestion to insomnia, and beyond. Obviously exceptions are, and should, be made if a woman’s life is jeopardized by continuing the pregnancy. Not many would deny her the right to self-defense.
Sometimes, despite the abortionist’s best efforts, the baby is born alive. The express purpose for an abortion is to deliver a dead baby. In previous years, actively killing that infant was permitted and was usually done by dropping her into a bucket of water. After some regulation was permitted, then passive rather than active dispensation was permitted. The baby who survived the abortion procedure was merely laid aside and neglected, except to monitor the time of death. President Bush mandated that these babies were to be treated as if they had been born prematurely and spontaneously. In other words, humane treatment had to be mandated by legislation. Barack Obama even refused to support the Infants Born Alive bill, which was signed into law by President Bush. What does this say about those people, Barack Obama among them, who continue to resist EVERY attempt to provide common sense regulation on the abortion industry. It says, loud and clear, that they are PRO ABORTION.
How radical is Obama on abortion? He has said that his first act would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. This would, in effect, codify unrestricted, unregulated, abortion on demand. (It would even eliminate any requirement for informed consent. Something that is demanded for every other medical procedure.) Most Americans still believe that minor children need to be protected and provided for by their parents. Obama would not support parental consent or even parental notification in the case of a minor seeking abortion. In his National Right to Life News and Views column, the author, Dave Andrusko addressed the question of Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Abortion. When I saw this column, it was like a repetition of the conversation I had only a few weeks ago with a family member of my own:
"A sympathetic but not totally sold-out family member smiled at me the other day and said, "No one is 'pro-abortion.'" Let me explain when and how and why we can say someone is pro-abortion.
Someone is pro-abortion when (to name just three components)
1. Whatever excuses they make, they oppose even the most marginally protective measure, even those, such as parental involvement, which are widely supported by the public. Obama opposes parental involvement.
2. They will defend any abortion, under any circumstance. For example, the hideous partial-birth abortion technique. Obama hammered the Supreme Court last year for upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
3. They work hand in glove with the Abortion Establishment to multiply the number of abortions at home and aboard. (sic.) It is no accident that Obama is a co-sponsor of the "Freedom of Choice Act." FOCA would toss all commonsense restrictions on abortion into the trash bin along with the bodies of all the additional babies that would be sacrificed."
I know that there are other issues besides abortion, but I can’t think of one that is more important. The next President will likely choose at least 1 new member of the Supreme Court, and possibly 2. Think about the possibilities. Hilary Clinton has been mentioned in speculative terms. We might have a radically liberal Supreme Court which will continue legislating from the bench for another 20 years or more if Obama makes those choices. Right now we have a very divided court and it is always a toss-up which side of an issuse they will fall on. . Furthermore, it is the Senate who will confirm the Presidential judicial selections. We need to do all we can to return a Pro-Life majority to the U.S. Senate. The party DOES matter. When most issues come to a vote, the members of Congress will revert to political game-playing, and follow the party line. The simple fact is that the Democratic Party has a Pro Abortion platform. The Republican Party has a Pro Life platform. If other issues are more important to you, then I challenge you to examine the party platforms of the candidates before you vote. You may be very surprised.
Even though we may not be sure where Barack Obama stands on other issues, we definitely have a clear idea of Obama’s agenda on abortion. We can look at his record in Illinois politics and as he passed through the U.S. Senate. (Though, at times, it seems that his main objective has been to “fly under the radar” rather than to take a clear stand and vote on an issue.) Oftentimes he voted, “Present”, rather than to commit. I wonder what has motivated him to mask his opinions in this way. However, his stand on the issue of abortion has been very well-documented. He has gone on the record as opposing anything that might prevent any woman of any age from seeking or obtaining an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. He has even gone so far as to characterize a child from an unplanned pregnancy as punishment for a mistake. Someone in the media characterized Obama as believing in the right to choose into the 4th trimester. Think about it. Do we really want him to change history?
We certainly know where John McCain stands on Life Issues. He has consistently spoken out and voted for protection of the unborn, the elderly, the disabled, and those in need. He has had a solid record from Vietnam to Washington, D.C. of defending those who can’t defend themselves. Exercise YOUR right to make a choice in this election. The choices are clear: John McCain or Barack Obama. It really is a matter of Life and Death.
For the Small Ones,
Lianna Karlin, President
Right to Life of Montana
Political Action Committee
|
